- Joined
- Jun 13, 2002
- Messages
- 499
I agree, however, if you replaced HFCS with crystalline Fructose....I don't think you would solve the obesity issue either. Most sweet plants are sweet from the fructose content. Corn is no exception. Sugar Cane is not a fruit yet it has a high amount of fructose. A beet is not a fruit yet it contains a high amount of fructose (remember, sucrose is about 50% fructose and 50% Glucose).
So ultimately, you can replace HFCS with any of the other "natural sweeteners" and you would still be getting huge amounts of Fructose.
But yes, I do agree that you would have a hard time filling your grocery cart with foods that don't have HFCS. The reason it is HFCS and not some other type of Fructose is because HFCS is the cheapest at the moment and producers will do anything to keep costs down. But if sucrose became cheaper than HFCS, I am 100% sure you would see everything switch over to sucrose which would still not solve any issues since there is still fructose in sucrose.
So ultimately, you can replace HFCS with any of the other "natural sweeteners" and you would still be getting huge amounts of Fructose.
But yes, I do agree that you would have a hard time filling your grocery cart with foods that don't have HFCS. The reason it is HFCS and not some other type of Fructose is because HFCS is the cheapest at the moment and producers will do anything to keep costs down. But if sucrose became cheaper than HFCS, I am 100% sure you would see everything switch over to sucrose which would still not solve any issues since there is still fructose in sucrose.